AtmanIsBrahman

Naught-knowing When a scientist, rationalist, or normie insists that the ultimate nature of reality cannot be known, as a result shutting down metaphysical or spiritual inquiry. What it is not: Naught-knowing is to be contrasted with “not knowing,” which is the radical admission that one doesn’t know something. The naught-knower claims that it is impossible to know or that such pursuits are meaningless. Therefore they shall know naught Examples: 1) You: Hey, have you ever thought about the ultimate nature of existence? Normie: What? How could you know that? It’s impossible! (reacts angrily) You: Hold my crocodile infinity! 2) “I tried to talk mysticism with Brian and his naught-knowing took over. I called him out on it and told him to get on his not-knowing game instead. Then he got confused and started doing crocodile tears🐊🐊🐊. Smh, hate these normies man.” 3) “When Richard Dawkins started doing his naught-knowing spiel, I gave him a slap on the cheek and said, ‘YOU’RE INFINITY GODDAMIT!’ “ Why it’s important: Because this identifies a common behavior of humans who are not interested in truth. Now you can recognize what they’re doing and decide how to react. You also now better understand what actual not knowing means based on the contrast.

I'll give it a try (keep in mind there isn't a consensus on these) Ne- potentiality Se- actuality Ni- will Si- memory Te- rationale Ti- logic Fe- ethics Fi- morals

It's nice to see that there's a conversation about MBTI here. It's a very useful tool to use alongside spiral dynamics and stages of ego development. You have to understand that it's a model of human nature though. It basically tells you what your chimp self is like, but you don't have to be limited to that personality.

@Leo Gura I had an insight that survival is only bad when it is limited. The more limited a thing you want to survive as, the greater the cost of survival is. But the more expansive a survival process becomes, the lower the cost, and the more it is liberated. When you arrive at infinity, it is infinitely surviving, not as any one thing but as everything. That's why demonizing survival is the wrong way to go- survival can't be criticized, it can only be laughed at. It is an aspiration for the infinite disguised in something finite.

@Leo Gura About your blog post on conservatism as a survival strategy, couldn't you argue that the leftist desire for inequality is also based on survival? I think it pretty obviously is, since that's true for everything humans do. The question then becomes what is "being survived" as Peter Ralston says. The right is simple: they want a national identity or group to survive, which ultimately benefits their personal survival. The left is tricky though-- they want equality, but for what purpose? Even if their ideal is universal equality, that ultimately benefits their personal survival and the survival of the society. My thoughts on this right now are that leftism is just a more expansive, higher-level form of survival, but survival nonetheless.

There is a distinction. While many Bernie fans are woke, he actually appeals to a wider audience, which is why he did so well in 2016 and 2020. Bernie's appeal is to the left, but also to everyday working people who want policies that help them (that is, if they aren't brainwashed into MAGA). It's surprising that you wouldn't realize this with your understanding of politics.

After following actualized.org for a couple years and diving into spirituality and existential contemplation, I might have had my first awakenings or mystical experiences. I’m curious if people on this forum can relate to this. I’m not sure if I should call them proper awakenings or glimpses of awakening, but I had these experiences on two separate occasions. I’ll explain the longer lasting one here. I was contemplating absolute truth after watching an actualized clip (I was completely sober and have never done psychedelics). I had heard about it countless times from Leo’s videos but didn’t really get it- I understood it intellectually but only on that level. As it turns out, there are deeper levels of understanding Leo’s videos- who would’ve thought? Basically, what happened was that I grasped what absolute truth is all at once and it was abundantly clear. I realized that I am in absolute truth already. I stared at a blank tv for about 30 minutes realizing that this is absolute truth. This was accompanied by a feeling of bliss and a sense that nothing could go wrong anymore with this realization, and this lasted for a couple hours. The thing is, these experiences went away, returning me to baseline consciousness. I’ve heard Leo mention being able to focus on absolute truth in his direct experience, but when I try that I can’t quite get there. I seem to generate some fantasy of absolute truth that is almost there but actually just an illusion of understanding when I inspect it. So the question is what to make of these experiences? Are they glimpses of awakening, actual awakening, a weird state of consciousness, or a self-deception? I’m aware that asking if an awakening is valid is ridiculous, but that’s what I’m asking 😄 This is the video I was watching, in case anyone wants to try their own Leo-fueled awakening. I found it to be very powerful.

Appearance itself. Sorry, didn't mean to be confrontational.

You seem to post similar responses on a lot of threads. I'm not trying to invalidate what you're saying, but what if this is only a perspective? If you keep preaching one perspective, you become locked away from all the other possible perspectives.

Thanks for the responses guys. I got the impression that its a sort of glimpse too. I will definitely keep going to see if I can keep increasing my consciousness for the real deal.

This is the thing about corruption, you don't know that you're corrupt- otherwise you wouldn't be. Trump probably sleeps well, and if he doesn't it isn't because he's morally judging himself but because he's concerned about how to run the country and how to deal with his opponents. I'm open to the idea but not necessarily in a causal way. It's easy to think of examples where you do "evil" and completely get away with it. If something is truly good, there's no reason to do it- you just do it because it's good. So I don't think you're punished for evil in that way. Watch this if you haven't already:

What's the difference between epistemic scoundrelry and epistemic pervertry? @Leo Gura

This is a good one. Hardcore epistemic scoundrelry by Dave and this dude he talks with, who knows a bit more about philosophy but is also super self-deceived

Let's think about this.. when you're meditating, you're seeking a change in state of consciousness. You accomplish this by sitting for a long time focusing on certain "anchor points" for your awareness such as sounds, bodily sensations, etc. The mind gets slowed down, which theoretically makes space for higher consciousness and insight. Why slow down the mind? Well, there are 2 reasons I know of: 1) the idea that the mind is hijacked by the ego, so it can't think truthfully, objectively, or without bias 2) Alternatively, absolute truth can't be accessed just by thinking. Both of these are flawed. 1) is true, but what if we could think without involving the ego? 2) Depends on what we consider thinking to be. If we consider it linear egoic thinking of tier 1 spiral dynamics stages, then yes, but if the concept of thinking is expanded to higher-dimensional thinking, it's a completely different matter. Here's the main issue with standard meditation practices from my point of view. You're essentially turning the consciousness dial down instead of up. My guess is that doing so can get you to certain insights like no-self (in some basic sense) or states of no-mind, but you're practically lobotomizing yourself. These are the spiritual Buddhist rats that Leo talks about . The goal should be to turn up that consciousness dial as much as possible. The higher your it gets turned up, the better your thinking is- the more expansive, deep, penetrating, interconnected, multidimensional, paradoxical. And spirituality is about truth-seeking, which is ultimately going to revolve around thinking in some way (of course people will debate this). You are trying to have the most complete understanding of reality possible, and the way to achieve that is by thinking in ever more advanced ways as aided by spiritual practices, since baseline human consciousness isn't enough. The main way to do this is psychedelics, but for those of us who don't have access, I wonder if there are other spiritual practices that could be more effective than standard meditation. Here are some ideas: Emotionally stimulating music, video clips, or movies- not usually thought of as spiritual, but why wouldn't it be? Of course, you have to be careful that they're stimulating in a highly conscious way, not in a reptilian way. Tantric-style sexual practices- sexuality is a tool, so why not use it? Shamanic breathing/ breathwork Contemplation infused with the benefits of one of the above There are definitely many other practices I'm not thinking of, but the theme is the same: you are trying to supercharge the thinking process, to access hyper-thinking. You want thinking to be as fast as possible, not slowed down due to some relaxed, calm mediation state. If you're looking for health and well-being, standard meditation might be a great practice, but for awakening I have my doubts, as heretical as it sounds. If anyone has arguments for why meditation is a great practice, or knows of any other fringe spiritual practices, I'd be glad to hear about them. Is the premise that thinking is important for awakening wrong? Please debunk my claims.

https://www.actualized.org/insights/actualized-quotes-100

Fischer was more of an opening theory addict than anyone back when he was still playing

Read what I said in the last paragraph about pattern recognition. Chess is a game of pattern recognition, and opening theory is just one facet of that. Pattern recognition itself is what intelligence is in a certain sense. Bobby Fischer is known to have kind of lost it in his later years, and he was talking about top level chess anyway, which proves my point.

The reason practically speaking is that it gets you an advantage because you will get a better position or even win out of the opening, and otherwise you know some basic plans to use once you're out of theory. Keep in mind chess is a competitive sport. I assume your point of view is more of enjoying the aesthetic beauty of chess as "Mind." For that purpose, I guess there's no reason to memorize anything, but you might find beauty in understanding opening ideas, which will eventually lead to some memorization anyway. Either way, there's no way around memory in chess. It's a game of pattern recognition, and the more patterns you know and can apply well, the better you'll play. It's not a game of pure intellect, nor could it ever be.

Exactly. Opening theory is one of the most interesting aspects of chess. If it didn't exist, chess wouldn't have been popular for so long. It's really not the case. Opening theory isn't that dense until you get to a ridiculously high level of chess, and even then it's not the main thing deciding your games- it's just one aspect of the game among all the others. For example, Fabiano Caruana, one of the top players, is known for having great opening preparation which can give him an advantage against other top players. But all of that would be irrelevant if he wasn't already at that level in all the other areas of his game. As a beginner to intermediate player, there's no obligation to study opening theory. You can if you want to, but you won't be hurt by avoiding it. One of the most fun ways to approach it is to learn some traps/ tricky lines that are objectively dubious but will score you wins against players at your level. There are many ways to approach it, but playing Fischer random as a beginner/intermediate to avoid theory is a self-deception imo.

@Leo Gura how do you reconcile the absoluteness of logic with paradox? You were saying in the blog post that a=a is absolute, but a paradox is basically when a=not a. So has your understanding of paradox changed? Based on the absoluteness of logic, it seems like paradox cannot be fundamental to reality.

For those of us on the self-actualization journey, we should be ready to stare God straight in the face.

@Breakingthewall Interesting explanation. Do you think of meditation as going deeper inside yourself then rather than turning off thoughts?

Modal Ontological Argument 1) If it is possible that God exists, then God exists 2) It is possible that God exists 3) Therefore, God exists Obviously premise 1 seems silly. It's based on modal logic. From ChatGPT: In modal logic, a being that exists necessarily means that its existence is true in all possible worlds. If it is even possible that a maximally great being exists (in at least one possible world), then by definition of necessary existence, it must exist in all possible worlds. Formally, if ◇□G (it is possible that God necessarily exists), then □G (God necessarily exists in all worlds).

Okay, but that doesn't really affect the argument. The argument just wants to show that at least one necessary being exists. If everything is necessary, then that's even better. I'm curious what your thoughts are on the argument from an awakened perspective and a layman perspective. I assume this was the awakened perspective- possibility and necessity are really the same thing. But what about the validity of the argument from a layman perspective? This is one of the most popular arguments (at least for academics and intellectuals).